Seriously though, there's definitely money to be made by businesses just outside the county lines. I worked in bars in Long Island in the early 2000s when Nassau County implemented the smoking ban and Suffolk County had not. Bars on the county line were so afraid of losing money by people just going a few miles down the road, they were ignoring the bans and allow people to smoke inside. The fines were cheaper than the money lost.
Los Angeles Moves Toward Ban on Flavored Tobacco, Exempts Hookah Bars
- Thread starter EssJaySea
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
You are pretty much correct, TT in West LA is all there is.
Sad, but true. We used to have dozens of wonderful pipe tobacconists here, but one by one they winked out of existence. Cigars are the king here.
There are B&M's, but they don't carry pipe tobacco. If you're into cigars, LA is heaven.
The state ban on flavored tobacco exempted pipe tobacco for the reason that it posed no threat to kiddies. I wonder if the LA ban will be altered. Since there's little to no pipe tobacco sold here I really don't care. They're banning something that's been largely gone for years.
In the immortal words of my buddy, Redneck Matt, "You can smoke anything you want to in here, brother!"
No more sillier than your question. I’m good with anybody smoking whatever plant they want. Evidently the politicians aren’t, hence, the hypocrisy.
I see it a bit differently. Tobacco use has a long public track record. It's associated costs in health and economic productivity have been studied and tabulated for years. Tobacco has never been outlawed, and it's not going to be because a complete ban simply makes a good market for criminals. People are attracted to forbidden fruit. No need to ban tobacco when death by a thousand cuts and a cultural change that makes tobacco use repellent to a large majority does the job.
Boo, on the other hand has been illegal for years, making billions for criminal cartels. Banning has been a complete failure, eating up billions of dollars. The "forbidden fruit" attraction is in full swing. There is not a lot of data on its effects on large populations, yet. So boo gets legalized, which is the first step in getting it marginalized as time and widespread exposure sets it up for the same death by a thousand cuts program a decade down the road. No hypocrisy involved, just reality.
Prohibitionism is a legal experiment that has failed miserably in every single enterprise that our nation has attempted. Abortion, tobacco, liquor, weed, hard drugs, sex work and porn, firearms, gambling, political influence peddling, you name it...if it's a commodity people are willing to spend money on, prohibiting it with force of law has failed to prevent it, has spawned rampant corruption in government, and has caused powerful criminal organizations to prosper.
Plus, hypocrisy pisses me off.
Plus, hypocrisy pisses me off.
The thread was about flavored tobacco, not all tobacco. As I already mentioned, I don’t care what anybody smokes, but banning flavored tobacco under the guise of protecting the welfare of children while legalizating “boo” is hypocritical. More kids are smoking boo than Captain Black Royal, but boo is making billions… and it’s easier to obtain. Ultimately, the political agenda is met with the path of least resistance. Does anybody really care about the influence of few people babbling on a pipe forum? No, and that’s the reality.
Again there have been zero studies linking any carcinogenic effects to marijuanna.
Before the great legalization push, it was incredibly difficult to study the effects of marijuana in English-speaking countries. As such, much of that research has only begun in earnest over the last 10-15 years. There has, however, been plenty done establishing and quantifying the carcinogenic nature of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and tars. Plus, cellular damage can occur without being explicitly carcinogenic (though still deleterious to health).
I am not anti-grass - far from it, actually. Point is, marijuana is nowhere near as damaging as cigarette smoke, but it is not a free ride.
but one thing it isn't is carcinogenic. It's funny the first major study was done by someone who thought they would certainly find it to be extremely carcinogenic.
And since this has turned into a discussion about other things rather than pipe tobacco/tobacco. It's time to close this one.
- Status